Man, we're not even all the way thru the viewing of their first guest selection and the Jeopardy host thing is already starting to feel a bit gimmicky, at least in terms of how many different people we'll be seeing before someone permanent is chosen. Current Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers has apparently also been contacted about doing a stint, FFS. I feel like a big part of the appeal of a show like that is the comforting familiarity that comes with the format and this could potentially undermine that.

Jennings is doing fine and I'd be happy with him. Though I'd also be happy if they went with a woman/POC assuming such a person were capable and interested. I just feel like they could probably streamline whatever process it is they're deeming the audition to follow.

Now if you'll excuse me I've got to finish this glass of prune juice and then I've got some clouds to yell at.

How did the Brit teen catch COVID twice while in a coma? Do his maskless teen friends come over and party with him while he's in a coma?

@6: Very good. Still your turn.

@3 I'd watch that.

I suppose that if they wait long enough, the rest of us will age into the group that can get vaccinated.

A lot of the change was deciding to vaccinate old people first, instead of teachers firefighters grocery workers.

There are a lot of old people.

@10 - you are correct. And to a certain extent, any prioritization scheme is defensible as there are many many groups with good reasons to want to be vaccinated. I'm not complaining about prioritizing old people.

My question is whether the delays are solely due to an actual lack of projected vaccine supplies, or some other logistical reason? The former is out of the state's control and we probably would be stuck with it; the latter is completely unacceptable.

If we need to put more resources into gearing up the effort, then fucking do it. Getting this thing under control is more important than pretty much anything else at this point. And as we are repeatedly being warned by people who know these things, if we DON'T control it ASAP, there are new variants that are more concerning that will stat to become more common.

I have not seen the thousands of National Guard personnel that could be working on this mobilized. Nor have I seen other government employees being repurposed. Perhaps it's time to consider really addressing the most serious danger that the country has faced in my lifetime?

RE: Charging children as adults in crimes.

This is a fucked up practice and needs to stop.

@12: There's no childhood left for her anyway. She forfeited it with an act of premeditated murder.

There's only one entity responsible for the total shit show of the vaccination situation:

Government Accountability Office report on Trump's handling of pandemic finds programs never implemented and money gone missing (note: check Trump's pockets)

The GAO report makes it clear, at length, that the Trump response was inadequate in every way. There was a failure to provide a national testing plan, a failure to provide national guidelines, a failure to account for billions distributed through a questionable process, and a failure to protect essential workers even when they were forced to remain on the job.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/2/3/2013742/-GAO-issues-340-page-report-on-Trump-s-handling-of-the-COVID-19-pandemic-deeply-troubled

@15 - I wouldn't characterize it like that.

If a child is charged with an identified crime, the judge has no discretion and the child must be tried in adult court. For all other crimes, the judge decides whether to treat the child as a juvenile or an adult.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/juvenile/who-decides-try-a-juvenile-adult

@18: Says the law. Are you Q now?

Thanks for the heads-up.

@21: You also have to consider the morality of endangering public safety by letting killers free to kill again. Not necessarily this girl. But that is part of the calculation judges are morally entitled to consider.

stealing her childhood
is morally wrong

how many Schloggers
had fights SCHEDULED
when They were Youth?

perhaps she's "fortunate"
her opponent didn't bring a
Gun to what turned out to be and
This IS FUCKED UP a death sentence.

Poverty is not Justice
nor is THREE FAMILIES
here with AS MUCH WEALTH
as the "BOTTOM" NINETY PERCENT
of all the Rest of US Citizens. what the fucking fuck?

who here -- other
than Dipshit Dew
Drop can Justify this?

@12:It's all very on brand for a Washington State prosecutor to maximize youth incarceration.

A prosecutor wet dream is a 16 year old committing murder in a liquor store. Then they can charge a 13 year old both for buying alcohol as a minor and murdering as an adult. Age is simply a situational charging convenience. Whatever gets more kids in cages at a younger age is a social good. You know; their doing it for the children.....

What blip @21 said. Exactly.

@22,
Doesn't mean you just spank them and then let them go. There are other ways to deal with it. But simply lumping them in as "adults" when they're not adults is lazy, immoral, vengeful, and ultimately dangerous.

It wasn’t “Hollyboob” in Bojack, it was “Hollywoo.” That was the better choice for the show. “Hollyboob” would have been too on-the-nose.

@13: What does "their is no child left in her" in the context of this crime even mean? Child brain development and psychology is not some arbitrary trait adults get to choose. It's a developmental description of the human brain.

And what is your end game here? Say we lock her up for the next 30 years in a violent environment where she will be isolated, humiliated, and potentially raped by male guards. If she was dangerous and violent before, she will leave more dangerous and more violent. Now add unable to get a job, or housing as a violent felon and a society trained to treat her like trash for committing a crime 30, 40, 50 years ago. Further isolation, shame and public humiliation for her crime until she dies with a group of victim advocates there to cheer her death.

How have you protected society? You have created an enormous financial burden to society that will need to support her until she dies. You have actually made society more dangerous. In this case she is both a criminal and a victim, which is typically the way these things work more often than not.

I'm against the death penalty for reasons that would not make sense to you, but to be consistent you should demand the death penalty for all crimes that currently requires incarceration, which leads to more violence.

Once you strip away your revenge and the empty platitudes about protecting society, how have you accomplished anything but revenge?

@28: Just because I don't agree that a teenager should never be tried as an adult you extrapolated a lot of questions that, actually, I don't disagree with you with in your dramatic scenarios.

Our guidance should never about revenge, but always about justice and safety.

@29: What you call "dramatic scenarios" are common outcomes for American incarceration and "justice" here is nothing more than a stand in for revenge. That's especially true in a scenario like this where both people were engaged in a crime that only affected them.

There is simply no credible safety argument for incarcerating youths as adults. America is an outlier for this barbaric practice and it's not because we care about safety. Safety is rarely what drives incarceration.

There's nothing that can be accomplished with children in adult prison that cannot be done better without it.

@30: Yes, she should remain in juvenile detention and then transferred to an adult facility when she turns 18.

Don't forget, she stabbed her victim in the face. Then again and again. Until she was dead, dead, dead.

She could be as evil as a serial killer.

@31,

Or she could be someone who's incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions. You know, like children.

Why do we not allow children to sign legal contracts?
Why do we not allow children to give legal consent?
Why do we not allow them to vote, to drive, to drink alcohol, to smoke?

The answer to those questions is the same answer for why we shouldn't simply treat them as adults when they commit crimes.

@32: So if she was 18 instead of 16 (still an adolescent) she would have been fully capable of understanding? Simply two years gives a child that?

@33 Let me phrase what you wrote in terms easier to understand.

So if an adult has sex with someone 18 rather than 16 (still an adolescent) she would have been fully capable of understanding? Simply two years gives a child that?

For sex along with a host of other behaviors we say yes, but for crime no? All this reveals the hypocrisy behind talk of safety involving underage crime.

So now we are going to speculate that every child murder is a potentially a sign of a serial killer? That type of tenuous leap is exactly what gave us the failed broken window theory and the failed sexual register system that has created more danger for everyone. That leap consistently makes the system less just and less safe.

You didn't answer my original question. What is your long term plan for how charging this 16 year old as an adult with the resulting decades in prison turns out well?

I need not postulate a long term plan. I only agree that there are times when a teenager should be tried as an adult. I agree with the judge's decision. You have a different opinion. That's all there is to it.

To conflate a scenario of a sexual seduction of a minor with a minor who committed premeditated murder is a contorted stretch not worth untangling to comment about.

@33,

It's an arbitrary age set for legal reasons. But having set it, and forcing the distinction on everyone whether they're mature at 15 or still immature at 20, means it cannot and should not be removed.

Either she's a child or she's not. Say she gets tried as an adult and some bizarre lawyering happens and her case is fast-tracked and the trial is over a month from now and she's acquitted of all charges. Since she's now an adult in the eyes of the law, can she now vote at 16 years old? Sign a legal contract? Join the military? I abso-fucking-lutely guarantee you that everyone would say "no, of course not, she's still only a child!"

The law is the law is the law. Either she's a child or she's not. As a nation, we have decided that the second you turn 18 you switch from child to adult, not a second sooner or later. Period the end.

Personally, I would MUCH prefer a system where people can request legal "adult" status at an earlier age, through some means of psychological testing. But that would be challenging and expensive so we've got what we've got.

She's 16. Doesn't matter if she blew up a church on Easter Sunday. She's a child. She must be treated as a child. A highly dangerous child obviously, but NOT an adult.

@35: There's a clear inconsistency in believing a 16 year old brain is too young to consent to sex, but not too young to be charged as an adult for other crimes. You seem to chose the brain development you desire to match the punishment to desire. The term for that is situational ethics.

The decision to charge this 16 year old with murder was the work of a prosecutor, not a judge. The fact that prosecutors regularly deflect their central role in youth incarceration tells you something. If they are unwilling to take responsibility for their your role, perhaps it's time to reconsider their decision making.

I don't recall any such sentiment over Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, charged as an adult for shooting three people at Kenosha protests.

@38 Nice try with the whataboutism, but the issue with Rittenhouse was not his age, but that the "we appreciate you guys" police encourage his behavior.

It's a story about police corruption. See the difference?

Rittenhouse should not be charged as an adult, but that does not give a free pass to the corrupt police than encouraged his behavior. That is what people other than you found so offensive.

https://www.vox.com/2020/8/27/21404117/kenosha-kyle-rittenhouse-police-gun-populism

@39: It's not about whataboutism when we're talking about two case of the same issue.

*cases

@38,
He should also not be charged as an adult so try again.

@42: No need for me to try again. We simply disagree. But, as far as I know, there as not a peep from libs at the time that Rittenhouse should not be charged as an adult.